Court of International Trade

Korean producer Hyosung Corporation did not respond by the deadline to a quantity and value questionnaire from the International Trade Administration in the initial stages of the February 2008 - January 2009 antidumping duty administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel (CTL) plate from Korea, then gave an incomplete response by fax only. The Court of International Trade dismissed Hyosung’s challenge to the 32.70% rate the ITA assigned it, ruling that the ITA was correct to reject the untimely and incomplete questionnaire, and finding that the adverse rate was supported by sufficient evidence. (Slip Op. 11-34, dated 03/31/11, posted 05/17/11)

Mid-Continent Nail Corporation, a domestic producer, challenged a ruling by the International Trade Administration that excluded nails in home tool kits from the scope of the August 1, 2008 AD order on certain steel nails from China. The Court of International Trade found the ITA has applied contradictory approaches in cases where merchandise covered by AD orders is imported in kits with non-covered items.

In a consolidated suit over the May 2005-April 2006 antidumping duty administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof, seven Japanese producers challenged the International Trade Administration’s use of zeroing and the ITA’s methods for matching U.S. to home market sales for price comparisons. Noting that in a recent decision the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the ITA’s continued use of zeroing in reviews after abandoning it in investigations was unsupported by law, the Court of International Trade ordered the ITA to reconsider its use of zeroing in the ball bearings review at issue. The CIT also ordered it to reconsider three aspects of its model matching methodology in response to the Japanese producers’ arguments. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/04/11 news, 11040408, for BP summary of CAFC decision overturning the continued use of zeroing in AD reviews.) (Slip Op. 11-52, dated 05/05/11)

Following the decision by the Court of International Trade to sustain the negative injury determination by the International Trade Commission on the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom, the Timken Company moved to stay revocation of the orders prior to the completion of the third sunset review. However, the CIT found that Timken failed to make a sufficient case, and ordered the International Trade Administration to proceed with revocation of the two AD duty orders. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/25/11 news, 11042511, for summary of the ITC’s remand redetermination finding no injury to U.S. industry.) (Slip Op. 11-54, dated 05/13/11)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that it has received notice that the National Candle Association¹ intends to contest CBP's determination that certain wickless wax items should be classified under HTS heading 9602 instead of under heading 3406. CBP is also providing notice that Port Directors at five ports of entry must notify the NCA when the first of such entries are liquidated.

On April 21, 2011, the U.S. announced its intention to implement the World Trade Organization's Appellate Body ruling against its practice of “double counting” subsidies in four U.S. antidumping and countervailing investigations of products from China (DS379), and requested a reasonable period of time to do so.

The International Trade Administration is publishing a "Timken"¹ notice that a recent court ruling is not in harmony with the ITA's final AD determination on steel threaded rod from China (A-570-932), and is amending its final determination and order to reduce the AD duty rate for one exporter/producer combination.

The Court of International Trade has ruled in Graphite Sales v. U.S., that while electric heating resistors are prima facie classifiable under both Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings 8516 as "electric heating resistors" and 9613 as "other electrical lighters", the resistors are properly classifiable under duty-free HTS 8516.80.80, as it provides a more specific description.

In the August 2006 - July 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand, the International Trade Administration applied a “total adverse facts available” rate of 122.88% to two uncooperative Thai producers, King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd. and Master Packaging Co, Ltd. The U.S. importer, KYD, Inc., having attempted to cooperate with the review, challenged the high rate determination as applied to its imports. The Court of International Trade cited the large difference between the adverse rate and the actual calculated rates for the 2006-07 review, and remanded the matter to the ITA to find a lower adverse rate for the importer, reasoning that an AFA rate must be "a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent’s actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to noncompliance.” (Slip Op. 11-49, dated 04/28/11)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision in Dell Products LP, v. U.S., that for tariff purposes, goods put up in sets for retail sale refers to goods that are offered to customers as a set for purchase rather than to a collection of goods that are assembled into a set after the customer has purchased them, in which case, the goods would be classified separately.